That's quite the cherry picking you've done there. Your "study" shows the statistics since the government took over the oil sector, but it oh so conviently leaves out the
circumstances under which the government took over the oil sector. I'm sure you're well aware that in the year 2002, Venezuela saw a coup d'état, three general strikes by the public, and a oil lockout. In the first four months of 2003 alone, their GDP fell by 26%. Most of this "94.7% growth came in the subsequent recovery from that 26% contraction, as well as the 8.9% contraction in 2002. Your own study even shows says that when you start at the pre-recession peak, the growth was only 37.2%.
However your source falsely claims that "it could be argued that this was difficult" because there was "considerable sabotage" in the oil industry. Baloney. Production had been halted, not damaged, and if there was "considerable sabotage" then why did it take only two months for oil to reach pre-strike levels? Further more, your study's cut off point is 4th quarter of 2008, conveniently before their GDP in current U.S. dollars by nearly 20% from 2010-2011. That's according to the World Bank by the way.
If one simply looks at Chavez's full term from 1998-2009, instead of cherry picking the difference between the highs and the lows, one finds that the economy grew 4.3% per year, or nearly a third of what you are claiming. And you know where I got that? Your own source.
The fact of the matter is this. While yes, Venezuela has had growth rates that would be considered exception here in the U.S., overall, their growth rates are not so impressive when compared to other in the region. In fact, from 2004-2012, their growth rates were a mediocre 6th out of 11 comparable countries ~@4.7% per year.
Economic Growth in Venezuela | The Americas Blog
Certainly not the outperformer you claim it to be.